Stay Misty for Me: G-Cloud’s transparency called into question

Process ‘not suitable for procuring major bespoke IT systems’

Comment The cash flowing through the G-Cloud is rising exponentially, increasing by £400m last year alone to total a very nice £600m. But while the cloudy framework's flexibility and choice is proving increasingly popular with buyers and sellers, it's worth examining what that money is – and isn't – being spent on.

In fact, only a fraction of that spend counts toward cloud commodity IT, the reason it was created.

There also appears to be a small but growing number of deals being pushed through that seemingly constitute a breach of the rules, leading to serious questions around contract transparency.

The vast bulk of sales to date remains under Lot 4, with "Specialist Cloud Services" now totalling £506m. That figure suggests the government has fallen far short of its now-forgotten target to procure 50 per cent of new IT spend via the G-Cloud this year.

In an unsolicited email sent to buyers, the controversial outsourcer admitted its £2.5bn mega Contingent Labour ONE framework is not "always best for niche skills". No mention of cloud IT skills under Capita's G-Cloud listing for recruitment services.

The "wrong" procurement process

While it's true that the types of cloud consultancy services available remains a grey area, with some more legitimate than others, of much greater concern are the big IT deals that patently do not belong on the G-Cloud.

Kevin Calder, partner in the technology and commerce team of law firm Mill & Reeve said he is aware of some "significant breaches" of the framework for complex deals – a trend that he notes has increased. "The G-Cloud is not suitable for procuring major bespoke IT systems," he claimed.

"However, I am told that the government has been recommending G-Cloud for a wide range of procurements including projects to implement complex bespoke solutions, which should not be procured under the G-Cloud," he said.

"When you're talking about major national roll-outs, two years isn't going to be long enough as a contract term, and the G-Cloud is the wrong procurement process to use," he added.

One recent questionable G-Cloud deal was the procurement of a £4m case management system for the Royal Courts of Justice, a project that itself has a long and troubled history. This deal was awarded at the beginning of last year and the roll-out will be complete at the end of this year.

In this instance, there is quite obviously an expectation that it will be renewed after the two year period, not least because it will only be fully working by then.

When asked by El Reg, earlier this year, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service said the Cabinet Office "advised us to go through G-Cloud, having already considered existing contracts" under its guidelines.

A spokesman said there had been more than 20 responses to the initial request for information, with "standard guidelines followed in evaluating the suppliers", resulting in Thomson Reuters being awarded the contract.

Another example was the Ministry of Defence's co-location data centre deal with Ark in December last year. This was originally described as a "major consolidation and centralisation project" which will "generate significant savings to the public purse in energy costs over the next 10 years." It later backtracked to say the deal was just for two.

One supplier, who asked to remain anonymous, got in touch to complain that a number of co-location suppliers had their services removed from the G-Cloud on the grounds that such services have now been banned. "It feels there are definitely grounds for appeal as suppliers have been disadvantaged in this procurement exercise," he said.